Potter-Throgmorton Debate Review IV

Throgmorton said:

I have another document I want to read to you: -

“Mt. Vernon, Ill., July 7, 1887.

Q. When were you connected with the Hardshell Baptist Church?

A. From February, 1881, to December, 1886, I was a member of Middlefork church, Franklin County, Illinois.

Q. What is the standing of the Middlefork church in the association?

A. It was the most influential church in the Bethel Association and in Southern Illinois.

Q. Who is pastor of that church?

A. Eld. Josiah Harriss has been pastor of that church since February or March, 1877-1879.

Q. What other position of honor does he hold in the denomination?

A. He has been moderator of Bethel Association since 1879.

Q. How is he on “Parkerism?"

A. He teaches that there is an uncreated, self-existent, eternal evil spirit, who was always at enmity to God; and that the non-elect are his children by origin.

Q. How is he on the use of means?

A. He teaches that God uses no means whatever in the conversion of alien sinners, and that the elect are the only subjects of Gospel address.

Q. Does the Middlefork church agree with its pastor in these views?

A. The membership generally accept his teaching as Gospel truth, but a few in my knowledge do not agree with him as to these questions.

Truly yours,

A. C. Webb."

Bro. Webb is a young man 30 years of age, and a son of Elder Elisha Webb, who, in his day, was one of the most prominent and influential Hardshell ministers in Southern Illinois. A. C. Webb was excluded from this Middlefork Hardshell Church on account of free-masonry.

(Elder Potter. Where does he belong now?)

Throgmorton. He is a Missionary Baptist now.

I wanted to give this information from the debate for several reasons.

1. After this debate, several Hardshells left the cult and became Mission Baptists! None, to my knowledge, left the Mission Baptists and became Hardshell.

2. The Hardshells of today do not know of the tremendous influence the "Two Seeders" and their related doctrines had on their denomination, well late into the 19th century.

3. It shows that the "no means" view was started by the Two Seeders.

Potter's 2nd

"In the first place, I will state that Dr. Watson was an old Baptist. He was one of our brethren, “Hardshells," as he calls us. He seems to contend very earnestly that the Gospel should be preached to every creature. We claim Dr. Watson as a representative man. Mr. Throgmorton recognizes him as an able man. That does not sound like the doctrine of our church would prohibit the Gospel being preached to every creature. He was pointing out some of the imperfections of our people, showing their remissness in duties, earnestly urging them not to embrace new doctrines, but to preach and practice the old doctrine of the church. Watson knew what the doctrine had been. I wish to call the attention of the brethren to that fact. I believe it is right to preach the Gospel to every creature. So do my brethren. Not that I claim to be a representative man, but I stand here to represent my brethren."

Since Potter, and many others before him, acknowledged the standing of Dr. Watson, why is it that very few of their elders today know anything about him? Why is it that so few of them today have read his book and other writings? Is it not because they want to "bury in oblivion" information about him? And that this is because they know how he showed that the first PBs held to the means view? And that he condemned the "modern innovators" or "ultraists" that were teaching Two Seed ideas, including the no means view of regeneration or new birth?

How can Potter, however, claim to be Old Baptist when he held to the very heresies Watson condemned?

Potter continued:

"He comes out very pointedly and says that he did not say that Calvinism was a curse to any community, when he was up this morning. He seems to think that he had a point on that. But he says that he said Hyper-Calvinism was a curse to any community,—not Calvinism. He discriminates between the two,— makes a distinction between them. I want that noticed by all. Now previous to the introduction of Fuller's Ministry, I read from one historian that the prevailing system of doctrine among the Baptist Churches at that time was Ultra-Calvinism. What kind of Calvinism was Ultra-Calvinism? What is the difference between Ultra-Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism? I would love to have him explain that to the audience. Is my opponent Calvinistic? The churches used to have Hyper-Calvinism. The churches believed in the calling of the Holy Spirit, and that all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved. Is that Hyper-Calvinism? If it is, it is just what the old Philadelphia association believed, as I shall show you. By the way, he makes a discrimination between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism, why does he not prove the difference?"

Notice that Potter in these words does not object to "Calvinism." Yet, our present day Hardshells decry being styled such! What changed? Was it not the Calvinistic belief in means and in the necessity of conversion for final salvation?

Hyper Calvinism is the denial that offers of salvation are to be made to all men, and that God has no love or desire for the salvation of all.

Potter continued:

"I now propose to notice my arguments a little further and show you some objections to the proposition that is to the missionaries being the original Baptists. I was on the point this morning that they had departed from the faith that they did not agree in doctrine. Upon that point I wish to continue, from the very fact that their practices have grown out of the doctrine they teach. However, I wish to notice this point a little further, concerning the universal damnation of the heathen."

All the historical evidence shows that what Potter here affirms is a gross falsehood. There is all kinds of evidence that the Baptists, in both England and America, supported sending out preachers to preach to those who had never heard the gospel. Just look at all the evidence we have given on this point in our blogs. Further, the idea that the "heathen" would be saved without faith in Christ, or without conversion to the Christian faith, was not the teaching of the Old Baptists prior to the "rise of the Hardshells." It was not even the general teaching of the founding fathers of the Hardshells.

Throgmorton's 3rd

"I come next to a consideration of the Sunday-school question. My opponent, you know, says he does not believe in them. It devolves on me now to show that Sunday-schools are warranted by Scripture, or that if they are wrong they are not of such a character as to warrant a denominational non-fellowship against a church which has a Sunday-school. I can take either of these positions and be a Missionary Baptist in good standing. There are some Missionary Churches which do not have Sunday-schools and which do not see the propriety of having them. But they are willing that the brotherhood shall have liberty on this question. If another church does have a Sunday-school it is not made a bar to fellowship between them. In other words, a Missionary Baptist Church does not expect every other Missionary Baptist Church to "sneeze every time it takes snuff." However, I shall take the ground that Sunday-schools are in harmony with the word of God. Of course I do not mean that the word, Sunday-school, is in the Bible; but that its essential idea is there. It is found in the command. “teach all nations," and in the fact that “teachers " were a gift in the New Testament Church. Just how this command to teach was to be carried out in all its minutia, we cannot tell. These matters are largely left to our common sense and to surroundings. We are to teach the truth. But just how we shall do it is largely left to us. Ministers are to preach; but much is not explained as to the manner. We are not told whether the preacher shall stand or sit; whether he shall occupy the pulpit or the floor; whether the preaching shall be done in a house, or in a grove. The preacher is to study that he may preach well. But we are not told whether he shall write his sermons and preach from the manuscript: or whether he shall write and commit them; or whether he shall preach entirely extempore. Hence, we infer that the preacher ought to do what his judgment dictates as best at the time. Men, and women, and children are to be taught. The church is to teach them through her ministers and teachers. The time, the place, the manner, so that all things are done decently and in order, are left with us. Paul disputed in the school of Tyrannus for two whole years. He taught in this school. Ac 19:9. Aquila and Priseilla took Apollos after they had heard him, and expounded unto him the way of the Lord more perfectly. The Savior on the mountain sat and taught his disciples in the language which we generally call "the Sermon on the Mount." Now what is a Sunday-school? It is a gathering which assembles on Sunday in which the Bible is studied and taught. Is it right to gather on Sunday? Yes. Is it right to study the Word on Sunday? Yes. Is it right to teach the Word on Sunday? Yes. Then it is right to have a Sunday-school."

This defense of Sunday Schools, and general education in the scriptures, was ably given by Dr. Throgmorton! All Potter could do is to say that it is wrong because "Sunday School" was not specifically mentioned in scripture! Yet, Throgmorton showed the hypocrisy in such an argument by showing how the PBs had many things in their practice that were not specifically mentioned.

Throgmorton continued:

"Of course I do not maintain that everything done in Sunday- schools is right; not at all. That does not, however, say that the Sunday-school itself is unscriptural. I do not suppose that Brother Potter would say that everything done in a Hardshell church is right. That, however, does not mean that Hardshell churches are not churches of Christ. Everything that is made up of men and women has of necessity much in it that is imperfect. This is true of individual Christians, and of individual Christian associations of every sort. A Sunday-school as such cannot be objected to. The time, the gathering, the studying, the teaching, are all right. “O, it is the organization we object to! Where do you get your superintendent, your secretary, your other officers?" These are in obedience to the command: "Let all things be done decently and in order." I might retort by asking: “Where do you get your church rules of decorum, your moderator, your clerk, etc., for church business meetings?" The Bible does not name them. You are obliged to answer just as I do as to the Sunday-school organization, that it is in obedience to the command: "Let all things be done decently and in order." 

Again, a powerful defense! And, Potter had no sound rebuttal to it!

Throgmorton continued:

"The Sunday-school is just like the weekly prayer-meeting and the monthly business meeting. It is all right to have them, but the mode of conducting them is left to our sense of propriety. (I suspect that the fact that the Hardshells do not have Sunday-schools may be the reason why “so few are coming into their churches," as Dr. Watson says.) Nor is any church bound to have these things. Yet every church might be greatly profited by having them. Missionary Baptists have these things, but do not make having them a test of denominational fellowship. Hardshell Baptists have the monthly business meeting on Saturday, with its moderator and clerk, its motions and seconds, and its church records, none of which is named in so many words in the whole New Testament. They infer the whole thing! But when it comes to the weekly meeting for Bible study on Sunday, with its superintendent and clerk, its teachers and classes, they say: “Away with it. We will have nothing to do with it, nor will we have denominational fellowship with a church that does have anything to do with it." Evidently a people so inconsistent cannot be the Primitive Baptists. Evidently on this point the Missionary Baptists are Primitive."

Again, an unanswerable defense!

Potter's 3rd

"He says that I said that this was the first organization of the kind among Baptists. Then he goes on to state that there was one in England organized in the year 1792. That is rather recent. I think, for a Bible Church, or a Bible institution to commence. Why didn't he give us a date away back yonder in 42 or 52 or somewhere along there in the New Testament days? But this institution was not organized till the year 1792, in England. I challenge him to mention a Missionary Baptist prior to that time. If he does not do it in his next speech I will understand why. That is that he cannot. I want this people to understand that I challenge him for a Missionary Baptist prior to the year 1792."

Though it is true that the Baptists did not have a denomination wide effort to send the gospel far off to heathens, yet they did support more local missionaries. In England the 17th century Baptists sent preachers into parts of England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. In America in the 18th century there were preachers sent to the frontier, to preach to sinners who were ignorant of the gospel message, and to the Indians. So, the reasoning of Potter was shown to be a mere Sophist evasion.

Consider also the fact that the English Baptists did not practice congregational singing in the 17th century until Benjamin Keach taught them to do so. After Keach's teaching the churches began to have congregational singing as a part of their worship. But suppose someone in that day, who opposed such singing, said "that is new among the Baptists"? To be "primitive" Baptists we must not change on this matter could have been argued (in the same way Potter is) in relation to changes in the degree of support for theological education and Sunday Schools. Just because some things were not generally practiced by Baptists of former times proves nothing. Perhaps the reason is because they were not perfect!

Potter continued:

"He then refers to Scripture. He quotes a number of texts to show that Bible preachers have taken up collections. Indeed, he said a good deal in his speech on that subject. He refers us to quite a number of texts to show that the Apostle took up collections for missionary purposes. But if any one of his quotations had missionism in it I failed to get that text. Did anyone here see missionism in any text he read?

Voice from the audience: “I did."

Mr. Potter: One man says he did. Well, Brother Throgmorton will wish to tell us where it is. You had better tell him which one it is for he does not know.

Now I want to give you some Scripture on the subject of collections. 1Co 16:1-4; Ac 11:27,30; 24:17; Ro 15:25-27; 2Co 8:1-4; 9:1,12; Ga 2:9-10. I have looked over these Scriptures and I find the quotations here are all on the subject of collections. You would think from what he said a moment ago that I would deny anything of that kind, but they are not on the subject of collections for ministers nor for missionary purposes nor for any other purpose, only for the poor. Now, I want that distinctly understood. He says if a "Hardshell” church were to have such a committee as that to make collections for the poor, it would be unchurched. I challenge him for the proof of any church or association doing so. ''Hardshells'' are not guilty of everything he says they are. I want to tell you what we have done in that particular, actually done. There is a brother here from Indiana, and another from Tennessee. They will both be witnesses to what I am going to say. I did attend a church in Posey County, Indiana, for about eleven years. That church did take up collections frequently for brothers and sisters that were poor.

But those passages of Scripture he introduces he says were not for the purpose of collecting for the poor saints only, but for ministers and missionary purposes also. But I want it understood that the collections the Apostles made were for the poor. But in all those texts of Scripture such an expression does not occur as "Missionary support." The Apostles said nothing about collections for benevolent purposes. Of course it was, but there was only one purpose in it, and that was for the poor. In talking about the collections made by the Apostles in the New Testament, that they were what would now be called, "Missionary support." What were they called then? What were the Apostles called? Were they called missionaries then? No, sir. What would you call them now? Missionaries, because you are one and you want to be identical with them, and that is why. They were not called so in the New Testament."

What a pitiful response to the argumentation of Throgmorton! The apostles and other evangelists cannot be called "missionaries" because that precise term is not used! I guess we should not use the word "Trinity" either! What is a "missionary"? One sent on a mission to preach the gospel! Is that not what occurred in the bible, as in Acts 13: 3-4? They were "sent" by the church and by the Holy Spirit!

Further, it is wrong for Potter to argue that none of the collections of the early saints was for supporting preachers on their missions to preach to the nations. The Hardshells affirm that they can take up collections for the poor but not for the preachers! Absurd!

Potter continued:

"I am going to leave that to a Missionary Baptist himself. I hold in my hand a book written by Mr. David Benedict, pastor of the Pawtucket Church, Rhode Island, written in 1860. That was Twenty-seven years ago; 1860 is the date of the book. Well now from what he says, he had been among the Baptists about fifty years. Mr. Benedict says, “fifty years ago," that would be 1810, just a little before the spirit of missionism began among the Baptists of the United States,— "fifty years ago, not an agent for collecting funds for any object of benevolence or literature was to be seen in the whole Baptist field!"

That is what Mr. Benedict says. And he is a responsible man. Does he tell the truth? I would love for Mr. Throgmorton to pay some respect to this. Let us notice that again. Fifty years ago, not an agent for the collecting of funds for any object of benevolence or literature was to be seen in the whole Baptist field!”

Mr. Throgmorton: "Read a little further, Brother Potter."

Again, we repeat the things we just noted in the previous comment. Just because some Baptists in former times were not able to do certain things, or were ignorant in regard to them, does not prove that those Baptists in those times were to be mimicked.

Throgmorton responded:

"He says. I do not find in Scripture any collections in money except for the poor. I suppose then Paul's wages were not really wages, but that they were alms given as for the poor. Not so. Paul received wages from the churches while at Corinth for his preaching; and these wages were brought to him by what would now be called a Missionary Board, as I showed you."

I do not recall Potter even attempting a response to this rebuttal. How any Hardshell can affirm that Paul did not receive collections from the churches to help support him in his missionary labors in light of the passages discussed is simply astounding.

Throgmorton continued:

"He quotes Benedict to show that up to 1810 there were no traveling agents abroad. But what does that signify? I have seen Missionary Baptist associations in my time which had no traveling agents. Indeed I know some such now. Are they therefore not Missionary Baptist associations? Not at all. Benedict goes on to say,—Brother Potter read it in the same connection,—that long before this [1810] agents had traveled for Rhode Island College and collected money. True, in 1810 no one dreamed that so soon there would be so many agents in the field. No one dreamed what wonderful things God would do for His people; but when the time came, just as there were agents to raise funds in New Testament times for the poor saints, so there were agents in our times."

Throgmorton continued:

"Brother Potter quotes Benedict, Vol. 2, pp. 56, 57, Ed. 1813, as to the discussion of the question, “Is salvation by Christ made possible for every individual of the human race?" This was in the old Sandy Creek Association. Did you ever hear of a Hardshell association discussing such a question as that? They never think of such a thing. The fact that the question was discussed shows that there were contending views. So there were. Benedict says that the contestants were almost equal in numbers; and the final result of the discussion was, they agreed to tolerate each other. That was in 1775. Hardshells would not tolerate the idea that salvation is made possible for all men, for a moment. Therefore, Sandy Creek Association was not a Hardshell association. Missionaries do tolerate such views; therefore, they are the Primitive Baptists."

Potter made no response to this line of argument and his silence speaks volumes!

Throgmorton continued:

"As he read one of my brethren on the Sunday-school question, I will read one of his on that subject. He tries to use Murdock against me on the question of Christian liberty as to expedients. I will quote from an article in the “regular Baptist magazine," written by W. A. Roth well.

"'Teach all nations,’ is the language of Christ. Children are a part of all nations." Shall we presume to make a difference where Christ made none, namely, teaching adults to the exclusion of children? He certainly designed that all who are capable of understanding the words of eternal life, should be taught the words of eternal life.

Shall we dare to make a distinction where Christ made none?"

This brother is certainly right and should be heard. Listen to him further: —

"Some who oppose Sunday-schools urge, as a reason for their opposition, that it is a duty of parents to teach their children the fear of the Lord, instructing them in the Scriptures. True. But suppose they refuse or neglect to do so, what then? * * * Again, it is contended by some that Sunday-schools, as now managed, are practically nurseries to the church on the one hand, and hot-beds of sectarianism on the other. Grant that this is true, what more does it amount to than an abuse or perversion of an institution, while it by no means argues that Sunday-schools in themselves, or when property conducted, are wrong. Moreover, seeing that they are perverted and misused, there is a greater reason why those who think they hold the truth, go forth and teach the truth, as they may have opportunity, in the hope of counteracting the errors complained of."

Exactly! The abuse of a thing does not mean the thing itself is not good.

Throgmorton continued:

"But he seems to think that the salvation of the heathen is a big question in this discussion. I will settle this matter right here. The heathen “are a law unto themselves." If they keep the law perfectly, they will be saved without the Gospel; but not one of them does this. “There is not a just man in all the earth that liveth and sinneth not." They are all sinners. Every individual has his faults, and there is no salvation for an actual sinner, except through faith in Jesus Christ. Will Brother Potter deny that? "But without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb 11:6. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Ro 10:17. Peter was sent to the Gentiles “that they by his mouth might hear the Word of the Gospel and believe." Ac 15:7. He that believeth not is condemned already." Joh 13:18. Paul was sent to the heathen "that they might receive the forgiveness of sins." Ac 26:18. Does God work faith without the Word? Show us a case. He could have arranged matters that way but he did not. “It pleased him by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1Co 1:21. Now, if Brother Potter has some other way, of course he will tell us what that way is. But God's way is plain, and he saves by the Word as a means — by the foolishness of preaching. So Peter was sent to the heathen that they might accept the provisions of God's grace that they might not be lost, but believe and be saved. This was what the old Philadelphia Association believed, according to Brother Potter's own quotation, twenty-six years before the split between his people and mine. Well may we send the Gospel to the heathen. God has commanded us to do it."

Again, Potter had no defense to make against such argumentation.